Also in Opinion

Subscribe to The Dispatch

Already a subscriber?
Enroll in EZPay and get a free gift!
Enroll now.

Wednesday July 10, 2013 5:28 AM

“Leading from behind” would seem the right place for America to be in the complex crisis
engulfing Egypt. But critics want President Barack Obama up front, telling the Egyptians what’s
what.

Sen. John McCain complains on a Sunday talk show that Egypt’s second coup in 21/2 years is “a
strong indicator of the lack of American leadership and influence, since we urged the military not
to do that.”

The Arizona Republican goes on to insist that the leadership deficit is wrecking the whole
Mideast. Citing the troubles in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain says, “When American
doesn’t lead, bad things happen.”

Now, can we seriously believe that a call from the president, even a stern call, would stop the
whirlwind of conflict in Egypt? Sure we could threaten the $1.5 billion we give them in annual aid,
but the new people in charge say they intend to reset the democracy and are friendlier to the
United States. That’s not going to happen.

In Egypt we saw a democratically elected president deposed for undemocratic behavior (and
incompetent governing). A tough call for us, but must the United States publicly pick sides in a
struggle that (a) we cannot control and (b) U.S. participation only complicates?

Naturally, both sides blame America, insisting that U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson is plotting
with their foes. The following quotes from
The New York Times show our dilemma:

Mona Mohammed, a bank clerk supporting the overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi: “The
ambassador is part of a conspiracy against Egypt and its people.”

Mohammed Amr-All, a professor at a pro-Morsi demonstration: “The ambassador meets with the
opposition and supports them.”

Back in the United States, Patterson’s to blame, as well. Conservative David Brooks writes: “She
tried to build relationships with whoever is in power. This created the appearance that she is
subservient to the Brotherhood. It alienated the Egyptian masses.”

Of course, building relationships with whoever is in power is an ambassador’s job, and Morsi was
elected. And what about the pro-Muslim Brotherhood masses now protesting the Morsi ouster? Clearly,
there are masses for every viewpoint.

Writing in
The New Republic, Marc Tracy offers an “appropriate liberal response.” That would be “
making clear that we value democracy,” while using the tools of diplomacy ”to put ourselves and our
allies in more certain positions when democracy, as it inevitably does, winds up giving us
unwelcome surprises.”

You wonder what “more certain positions” would be in the case of Egypt’s unfolding chaos.
Perhaps they don’t exist — or put another way, the position we should have taken will be revealed
by history, long after the dust settles on the tragic convulsions in Egypt.

The European Union is quietly talking to all sides, as is the Obama administration. But Obama’s
cautionary approach is not the American way, says a punditry frustrated that we aren’t using our
power to do whatever. Perhaps it should be in certain disordered situations, which describes almost
every Mideast crisis.

To do otherwise means choosing from equally unattractive options and taking the inevitable
blowback from the side we don’t seem to be supporting — which, as we see in Egypt, tends to be both
sides.

More McCain: “Morsi was a terrible president. Their economy is in terrible shape thanks to their
policies. But the fact is, the United States should not be supporting this coup.”

The fact is, we are not supporting the coup. As Obama told a National Security Council meeting
over the weekend, “The United States is not aligned with, and does not support, any particular
Egyptian political party or group.” Lack of leadership? No, the only sensible response at this
time.